DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 05/18/2026. Currently, claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 8 and 14 have been amended. No newly added and/or cancelled claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowed over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the cited and/or relevant prior art teaches the combined limitations:
calculate a length of a path along a passage in the store between the first terminal device and each of the plurality of second terminal devices based on the position of the first terminal device, the position of each of the plurality of second terminal devices, and map information storing a structure of the passage and information about a length of the passage, resulting in a calculated length of the path; and
based on the calculated length of the path and based on a link weight that is a variable value based on at least one of: a location of a second terminal device of the plurality of second terminal devices and assignments of the store clerks, select a first store clerk who carries the second terminal device and is capable of responding to the support request from the first terminal device, as compared to other store clerks, resulting in a selected store clerk, wherein the link weight is set to a value larger than a defined value based on the a store clerk being on a different floor than the customer or based on the store clerk being on a work break, and wherein the link weight is set to a value smaller than the defined value based on the store clerk being assigned to respond to the customer”,
as recited in claim 1
Claims 8 and 14 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are patentable over prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method and systems for providing shopping support.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“acquire…current positions of the first terminal device and the second terminal device; (receiving position data)
acquire… a support request from the first terminal device in response to the indication…; (receiving support request data)
calculate a length of a path along a passage in the store between the first terminal device and each of the plurality of second terminal devices based on the position of the first terminal device, the position of each of the plurality of second terminal devices, and map information storing a structure of the passage and information about a length of the passage…; (calculating a path length)
based on the calculated length of the path and based on a link weight that is a variable based on at least one of: a location of a second terminal device of the plurality of second terminal devices and an assignment of the store clerks, select a first store clerk who carries the second terminal device and is capable of responding to the support request from the first terminal device as compared to other store clerks…; and (determining appropriate store clerk)
instruct…the second terminal device carried by the selected store clerk of support for the customer using the first terminal device” (sending instruction information)
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring data (position and support request), 2) calculating a path between two points, 3) determining appropriate store clerk based on calculated path and availability, and 4) transmitting results (selected store clerk and support instruction).
The above steps describe the process of providing shopping support. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements in the form of one or more computing devices (first terminal device, second terminal devices, access points, communication network and server device) to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The additional elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the claim recites the additional elements of “specifying a position of the first terminal device in the store based on global positioning system…and outputting the specified position to the server device…”, “receiving an instruction from the customer and request support from the store clerk in response to a call button activation input”, “specifying the position of the second terminal device in the store… and outputting the specified position to the server device…”, “acquiring a support instruction for the customer who uses the first terminal device and requests support”, “receiving first indication of an availability of a call response…” and “outputting the first indication of the availability of the call response…”. These steps describe collecting, sending and displaying information (support request, position data, support instruction, call response), which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In addition, the step of “transmitting the presence of the first terminal device to surroundings by causing a warning light located near the first terminal device to output light in a defined color and in a defined pattern…” and “not notifying the other second terminal devices carried by store clerks…” simply limits the request transmission using “flashing lights” and only notifying one store clerk. The additional element merely confines the request transmission to a particular type of transmission and clerk selection to one store clerk. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The additional elements in the form of one or more computing devices (first terminal device, second terminal device and server device), represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the steps of “specifying a position of the first terminal device in the store…and outputting the specified position to the server device…”, “receiving an instruction from the customer and request support from the store clerk in response to a call button activation input”, “specifying the position of the second terminal device in the store… and outputting the specified position to the server device…”, “acquiring a support instruction for the customer who uses the first terminal device and requests support”, “receiving first indication of an availability of a call response…” and “outputting the first indication of the availability of the call response…”, while amounting to insignificant extra-solution activities, amounts to courts’ recognized well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions of “transmitting/receiving data over a network”. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
In addition, the step of “transmitting the presence of the first terminal device to surroundings by causing a warning light located near the first terminal device to output light in a defined color and in a defined pattern…” and “not notifying the other second terminal devices carried by store clerks…” simply limits the request transmission using “flashing lights” and only notifying one store clerk. The additional element merely confines the request transmission to a particular type of transmission and clerk selection to one store clerk, and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 8 and 14 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-19 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
For example, claims 2 and 3 are directed to “determining the path” encompassed by the identified abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed under section 101 above, the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claimed shopping support system describes providing shopping support to a customer by selecting a store clerk capable of responding to a support request from a customer to support the customer. The system acquires location information associated with each store clerk and customer(s) and determines a store clerk available to respond to a support request. The determination is based on path calculation and store clerk availability. Thus, the claimed invention covers “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claimed invention uses computer technology to provide a business solution of selecting the optimal store clerk to fulfil a customer service request. The claimed invention collects support request, as well as location data associated with a customer and one or more store clerks. A store clerk is selected based on calculation using the collected data and one or more defined rules. The selected store clerk is notified. Thus, the claimed invention covers “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The recited first terminal device, second terminal device and server device describe the computer technology to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above.
In addition, the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. “Transmitting/receiving data over a network” has been held by the courts to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions.
Further, the step of “transmitting the presence of the first terminal device to surroundings by causing a warning light located near the first terminal device to output light in a defined color and in a defined pattern…” and “not notifying the other second terminal devices carried by store clerks…” simply limits the request transmission using “flashing lights” and only notifying one store clerk. The additional element merely confines the request transmission to a particular type of transmission and clerk selection to one store clerk. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights